Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/04/27) */
First Venture denies the allegations in Mr***'s complaintPrior to purchasing the home at issue, Mr*** had a home inspection doneThe inspection appeared to be extremely thorough as issues such as foil in ceiling lights being
loose were reportedAs a result of Mr***'s personal inspection of the home, and his inspector's inspection of the home, an extremely long "punch list" was created, and First Venture completed each item on the listAfter purchasing the home, Mr*** contacted First Venture complaining of certain issues that he believed needed to be addressedFirst Venture responded to his concerns, and took corrective actionSubsequently, after more than a year, Mr*** contacted First Venture again with additional concernsFirst Venture, at this point, did not believe the issues were a result of the construction of the homeRather, what Mr*** was now experiencing were typical routine maintenance issues for homeownersAdditionally, it appears some of Mr***'s issues are a result of his lack of controlling the humidity level in his homeThe issues he is currently complaining about are not construction defects for which First Venture is responsibleAt one point, Mr*** was represented by an attorney, but apparently he is no longer represented by that attorneyMr*** has decided instead to file complaints against First Venture with any organization where he can do soThis complaint has no merit, and First Venture would request that it be dismissed
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2016/04/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I find First Venture's response to be irresponsible, off topic and bares little regard to the actual nature of my complaintTo summarize my complaint and previous correspondence to First Venture once again, I have incurred thousands of dollars in repair costs to correct First Venture construction flaws and structural defects related to improper foundation structure components that support sections of my homeI believe these problems were caused by latent defects attributable to deficiencies in workmanship and/or materials used in the construction of the homeThe problems covered in this complaint are directly related to the improper placement (locations), size and/or number of concrete piers/columns and the shims that were used between certain pier/beam locations which support some of the load bearing walls and other locations within the dwellingThe wall crack damage and other problems occurred because the structural defects caused floors/walls to sagStructural repairs included the installation of additional concrete piers/columns, beam-pier shim replacement, joist additions, etcto correct the problem areasThis is all documented in the structural engineering report previously submitted to First Venture
I am not sure why First Venture mentions my home inspection punch list from four years ago, characterizes it as "extremely long" and chose to focus on "foil in ceiling lights," since this only serves to highlight more First Venture related problems with the housePerhaps it was a failed attempt to portray me as a chronic complainer who can never be satisfied? On the contrary I am no different than anyone else who makes a significant investment in a new house and expects to get a quality product in returnBut since First Venture brought it up, I will explain the ceiling light issueMy home inspector discovered that the foil-faced insulation, which was located between the light fixture base and the light bulbs, was loose and hanging down on top of the light bulbSince the foil/insulation was installed by the manufacturer to deflect heat from the bulb, away from the ceiling and the electrical wiring above the fixture for safety reasons, it needed to be corrected since it presented a fire hazardThis issue was included on the contract punch list to be "repaired and/or replaced." Instead of complying with the request, First Venture took the "easy" route and tore it all out of the lights (which by the way, voided the manufacturer's UL listing and warranty for the fixtures)It was not until after I took possession of the home that I discovered this(To avoid problems, I simply chose to replace the and Watt incandescent bulbs in those fixtures, with LEDs that don't give off as much heat.) Because of the potential fire hazard, I am very glad I hired an inspector! Other punch list items included: kitchen cabinets designed for glass pane inserts (but there was no glass installed); the washing machine water connection drain hole was not punched out (no way to drain washer); the dishwasher was not secured to the kitchen counter framing; electrical outlet was missing its cover; several holes in walls; paint touch-up; etcIf more care had been taken by First Venture, these items would not have been on the punch listAt a later date First Venture split the cost with me to install a proper vapor barrier in the crawl space
As to any implication that my home inspector, who was certified by the American Society of Home Inspectors, should have had the training and education to that of a structural engineer who could have found the issues during the inspection, I should point out that a typical home inspection is not intended to be technically exhaustive and is not within technical scope of services or training, as compared to a structural engineering assessment
First Venture's response asserts that they "did not believe the issues were a result of the construction"? This is perplexing since First Venture built the structure from start to finish
First Venture also asserts that my home's problems are "typical routine maintenance issues." Routine maintenance issues...Really? To reiterate, the problems included: significant size cracks in numerous interior walls, ceiling crack, seam separation of the granite kitchen countertop slabs, grout cracks along the kitchen countertop and backsplash interface, sticking doors, baseboard trim and crown molding joint separation, unevenness in the hardwood flooring, separation of the master bathtub surround panels (2nd time)These problems cannot be called "routine maintenance."
It is amazing how First Venture concluded all of this since no one from First Venture ever bothered to investigate the cause(s) of the wall cracks even after First Venture's subcontractor recommended to them that they investigate the causeTo date, First Venture has not provided any sound technical justification or factual proof to negate the structural engineer's report or similar opinions of two of its own subcontractors or the professional opinions of other Springfield contractors who inspected my home
First Venture noted that I am no longer represented by an attorneyThat is correct but I don't see that has any bearing on my complaintBecause First Venture would not respond to any of my earlier correspondence on this matter, I was forced to hire an attorney who wrote a letter to First Venture on my behalf and later talked to their attorneyBased on his advice from their discussion I was led to believe that First Venture would not make any repairs, but was willing to pay for the repairsThe real issue here is that an attorney should never have been needed in the first place if the builder would have taken responsibility for his product and workmanship by taking corrective action as would normally be expected
First Venture may choose to be in denial of my home's defects but that certainly does not change the factsAll of my home's problems are very real and have been a considerable cause of stress for me and my family for over two yearsFirst Venture needs to step up, stand behind its work and accept responsibility for the cost of repair work as requestedAs for this Revdex.com complaint, the Springfield Home Builders Association strongly suggested I file this complaint with the Revdex.comFor the record, all of my data and pictures that support my claim regarding this matter are available to the Revdex.com upon request
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2016/05/12) */
First Venture stands by its original responseNothing in the "rebuttal" raises any new issue or provides any additional informationIf the Revdex.com would like to discuss this issue further, please feel free to contact us
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 21, 2016/05/16) */
Revdex.com Comment: Consumer called and stated he did not accept the Business Rebuttal
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/04/27) */
First Venture denies the allegations in Mr***'s complaintPrior to purchasing the home at issue, Mr*** had a home inspection doneThe inspection appeared to be extremely thorough as issues such as foil in ceiling lights being
loose were reportedAs a result of Mr***'s personal inspection of the home, and his inspector's inspection of the home, an extremely long "punch list" was created, and First Venture completed each item on the listAfter purchasing the home, Mr*** contacted First Venture complaining of certain issues that he believed needed to be addressedFirst Venture responded to his concerns, and took corrective actionSubsequently, after more than a year, Mr*** contacted First Venture again with additional concernsFirst Venture, at this point, did not believe the issues were a result of the construction of the homeRather, what Mr*** was now experiencing were typical routine maintenance issues for homeownersAdditionally, it appears some of Mr***'s issues are a result of his lack of controlling the humidity level in his homeThe issues he is currently complaining about are not construction defects for which First Venture is responsibleAt one point, Mr*** was represented by an attorney, but apparently he is no longer represented by that attorneyMr*** has decided instead to file complaints against First Venture with any organization where he can do soThis complaint has no merit, and First Venture would request that it be dismissed
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2016/04/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I find First Venture's response to be irresponsible, off topic and bares little regard to the actual nature of my complaintTo summarize my complaint and previous correspondence to First Venture once again, I have incurred thousands of dollars in repair costs to correct First Venture construction flaws and structural defects related to improper foundation structure components that support sections of my homeI believe these problems were caused by latent defects attributable to deficiencies in workmanship and/or materials used in the construction of the homeThe problems covered in this complaint are directly related to the improper placement (locations), size and/or number of concrete piers/columns and the shims that were used between certain pier/beam locations which support some of the load bearing walls and other locations within the dwellingThe wall crack damage and other problems occurred because the structural defects caused floors/walls to sagStructural repairs included the installation of additional concrete piers/columns, beam-pier shim replacement, joist additions, etcto correct the problem areasThis is all documented in the structural engineering report previously submitted to First Venture
I am not sure why First Venture mentions my home inspection punch list from four years ago, characterizes it as "extremely long" and chose to focus on "foil in ceiling lights," since this only serves to highlight more First Venture related problems with the housePerhaps it was a failed attempt to portray me as a chronic complainer who can never be satisfied? On the contrary I am no different than anyone else who makes a significant investment in a new house and expects to get a quality product in returnBut since First Venture brought it up, I will explain the ceiling light issueMy home inspector discovered that the foil-faced insulation, which was located between the light fixture base and the light bulbs, was loose and hanging down on top of the light bulbSince the foil/insulation was installed by the manufacturer to deflect heat from the bulb, away from the ceiling and the electrical wiring above the fixture for safety reasons, it needed to be corrected since it presented a fire hazardThis issue was included on the contract punch list to be "repaired and/or replaced." Instead of complying with the request, First Venture took the "easy" route and tore it all out of the lights (which by the way, voided the manufacturer's UL listing and warranty for the fixtures)It was not until after I took possession of the home that I discovered this(To avoid problems, I simply chose to replace the and Watt incandescent bulbs in those fixtures, with LEDs that don't give off as much heat.) Because of the potential fire hazard, I am very glad I hired an inspector! Other punch list items included: kitchen cabinets designed for glass pane inserts (but there was no glass installed); the washing machine water connection drain hole was not punched out (no way to drain washer); the dishwasher was not secured to the kitchen counter framing; electrical outlet was missing its cover; several holes in walls; paint touch-up; etcIf more care had been taken by First Venture, these items would not have been on the punch listAt a later date First Venture split the cost with me to install a proper vapor barrier in the crawl space
As to any implication that my home inspector, who was certified by the American Society of Home Inspectors, should have had the training and education to that of a structural engineer who could have found the issues during the inspection, I should point out that a typical home inspection is not intended to be technically exhaustive and is not within technical scope of services or training, as compared to a structural engineering assessment
First Venture's response asserts that they "did not believe the issues were a result of the construction"? This is perplexing since First Venture built the structure from start to finish
First Venture also asserts that my home's problems are "typical routine maintenance issues." Routine maintenance issues...Really? To reiterate, the problems included: significant size cracks in numerous interior walls, ceiling crack, seam separation of the granite kitchen countertop slabs, grout cracks along the kitchen countertop and backsplash interface, sticking doors, baseboard trim and crown molding joint separation, unevenness in the hardwood flooring, separation of the master bathtub surround panels (2nd time)These problems cannot be called "routine maintenance."
It is amazing how First Venture concluded all of this since no one from First Venture ever bothered to investigate the cause(s) of the wall cracks even after First Venture's subcontractor recommended to them that they investigate the causeTo date, First Venture has not provided any sound technical justification or factual proof to negate the structural engineer's report or similar opinions of two of its own subcontractors or the professional opinions of other Springfield contractors who inspected my home
First Venture noted that I am no longer represented by an attorneyThat is correct but I don't see that has any bearing on my complaintBecause First Venture would not respond to any of my earlier correspondence on this matter, I was forced to hire an attorney who wrote a letter to First Venture on my behalf and later talked to their attorneyBased on his advice from their discussion I was led to believe that First Venture would not make any repairs, but was willing to pay for the repairsThe real issue here is that an attorney should never have been needed in the first place if the builder would have taken responsibility for his product and workmanship by taking corrective action as would normally be expected
First Venture may choose to be in denial of my home's defects but that certainly does not change the factsAll of my home's problems are very real and have been a considerable cause of stress for me and my family for over two yearsFirst Venture needs to step up, stand behind its work and accept responsibility for the cost of repair work as requestedAs for this Revdex.com complaint, the Springfield Home Builders Association strongly suggested I file this complaint with the Revdex.comFor the record, all of my data and pictures that support my claim regarding this matter are available to the Revdex.com upon request
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2016/05/12) */
First Venture stands by its original responseNothing in the "rebuttal" raises any new issue or provides any additional informationIf the Revdex.com would like to discuss this issue further, please feel free to contact us
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 21, 2016/05/16) */
Revdex.com Comment: Consumer called and stated he did not accept the Business Rebuttal